>Adrian's criticism -- if I understand correctly -- is simply that, if the
dance
>phenomenon exists and is correctly understood, and if the theory is sound,
>then -- given the immense significance it should have practically,
>philosophically, and politically -- much more should have been expected to
have
>come of its discovery by now.  This is not necessarily always the case, I
do
>understand,  but it is hard to think of pure discoveries that do not lead
to
>something else over a few decades.  The lack of offspring in this instance
does
>tend to look a little suspicious.

The offspring in the "dance" area may come from the contract pollination
area of beekeeping. Beekeepers (as well as their customers) may be making
choices in how they handle hive placement based on their understanding of
bee navigational abilities.

An example of this was mentioned on the list a while ago. Farmers were
placing empty trailers in large fields to help the bees return to their
hives, assuming the bees would use these landmarks to navigate. If I
remember the report it worked and fewer field bees were lost.

If assumptions are made as to the bees having a accurate navigation system
that is based on the "dance" then choices are most likely being made on this
information. If the choices are right, then the "dance" is being used to
help beekeepers. If the "dance" theory is incorrect then the result of the
choices is left to chance.